$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 19.02.2026 + W.P.(C) 1013/2026 CM APPL. 4911/2026 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhishek Yadav, SPC.

versus

681464 EX JWO HAREKRUSHNA SAHOO .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kritendra Tiwari, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL W.P.(C) 1013/2026 CM APPL. 4911/2026

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.04.2023 [‘impugned order’] passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi [‘Tribunal’] in Original Application [‘O.A.’] No. 1655/2021 titled as Ex JWO Harekrushna Sahoo v. Union of India & Ors., wherein the Respondent has been granted the benefit of the disability element of pension for Primary Hypertension assessed at 30% for life, rounded off to 50% for life, from the date of his discharge from the service i.e., 31.01.2020.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Respondent was discharged from the service on 31.01.2020 under the clause ‘on attaining the age of superannuation’.

3. The Release Medical Board [‘RMB’] held on 03.03.2019 assessed the disability i.e., Primary Hypertension at 30% for life. The RMB opined that since the onset of the disease was at the time when the Respondent was serving at the peace station i.e., in November 2010 at Bangalore, the aforesaid disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated [‘NANA’] by the military service.

4. The Respondent’s claim of disability pension was rejected by the Petitioners vide letter dated 11.12.2019 and the same was communicated to the Respondent vide letter dated 13.01.2020. It is stated that an appeal filed by the Respondent was also rejected.

5. In these facts, the Respondent filed O.A. No. 1655 of 2021 before the Tribunal for the grant of disability element of pension. The RMB assessed that the Respondent suffering from two ailments, however, in the O.A., the Respondent only prayed for disability pension pertaining to one ailment i.e., Primary Hypertension. By the impugned order, the Tribunal after referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors., 2013 (7) SCC 361 and Union of India v. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761 granted the relief of disability pension to the Respondent.

6. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners is that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the judgment of Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) is totally misplaced as in the said case the Supreme Court was concerned with the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 [‘Entitlement Rules, 1982’], whereas the case of the Respondent needs to be considered under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008 [‘Entitlement Rules, 2008’].

6.1. He contends that the Tribunal has overlooked the Entitlement Rules, 2008, which govern attributability and aggravation and no longer permit a blanket presumption in favour of the claimant/officer; and since the RMB has opined the disease to be NANA, the Tribunal could not have presumed a causal connection between the disease and the service. He states in the facts of this case, Respondent was discharged from services on 31.01.2020 and therefore, the Respondent would be governed by Entitlement Rules, 2008. He states that the impugned order incorrectly applies the presumption under the repealed Entitlement Rules, 1982, ignoring the amended regime under Entitlement Rules, 2008. He states that the Entitlement Rules, 2008, have done away with the general presumption to be drawn to ascertain the principle of ‘attributable to or aggravated by military service’.

7. Having perused the reasons for NANA recorded in the opinion of the RMB, we are unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Tribunal